If, in the expression, we're still talking abstractly about content, it seems to me we should be able to do the description of the manifestation with the understanding that the manifestation is a 'package'? Can I also suggest we substitute 'aggregations' for 'records' as much as possible?

+

If, in the expression, we're still talking abstractly about content, it seems to me we should be able to do that and still describe the manifestation ias a 'package'. Can I also suggest we substitute 'aggregations' for 'records' as much as possible?

-- Diane Hillmann, 2/12/13

-- Diane Hillmann, 2/12/13

Revision as of 17:26, 12 February 2013

As discussed on RDA-L, the presence of bibliographical references is content information, provided at the Expression level. However, 7.16 (Supplementary Content) shows an example with pagination, and this information does not seem appropriate at the Expression level, since different manifestations might have the references on different pages. If we are not to add pagination, then shouldn’t that example be removed?

Comments

This is an example of a larger issue. The JSC recently agreed with a comment from the Library of Congress that we should not strictly separate work/expression/manifestation/item information, e.g., we should not banish all manifestation information from the recording of expression information. What we do need to be clear about is what type of information we are recording. If we agree that bibliographies are Supplementary Content (expression), then we may not need to insist that we cannot record the pagination (manifestation). However, we do this at some risk that the information will not apply to all manifestations.

Perhaps we will feel differently about that risk once we are truly separating WEMI descriptions into separate "records".

That does leave the question: If not part of the Supplementary Content statement, where would the pagination be recorded?

-- John Attig, 2/11/2013

If, in the expression, we're still talking abstractly about content, it seems to me we should be able to do that and still describe the manifestation ias a 'package'. Can I also suggest we substitute 'aggregations' for 'records' as much as possible?